Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 October To 8 October, 2022

Delhi High Court Rate Reduction Benefit By Reduction In Prices: Delhi High Court Directs Loreal To Deposit Principal Profiteered Amount Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited Versus Union Of India The Delhi High Court has directed Loreal to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount in six equal instalments. The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has observed that the interest amount directed to be paid by the department as well as the penalty proceedings and investigation by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in respect of other products sold by Loreal has stayed till further orders. Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayer To Utilise Amount Available In Electronic Credit Ledger to Pay Pre-Deposit Case Title: Oasis Realty Versus The Union of India The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer may utilise the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of tax in dispute as prescribed under Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act. The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor restored the appeal on the taxpayer's promise to debit the Electronic Credit Ledger within one week of the order being uploaded towards the 10% payable under Section 107(6)(b). Minimum 30 Days Time To Be Granted To File Reply To GST SCN:Bombay High Court Case Title: Sheetal Dilip Jain Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. The Bombay High Court has held that Section 73(8) of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act (MGST Act) permits a person chargeable with tax for a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment of such tax along with interest payable. If he does not wish to make payment, then within the 30 day period he could file a reply to the show-cause notice. The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has observed that to file a reply to the show-cause notice, the statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer. Calcutta High Court GST Proceedings Initiated By Anti Evasion And Range Office For The Same Period Is Not Permissible: Calcutta High Court Case Title: M/s. R. P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Superintendent, CGST & CX The Calcutta High Court has held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act have already commenced, it is appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to their logical end. The proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period will not be continued. The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that three wings of the same department are proceeding against the appellants for the same period. Calcutta High Court Directs State Government To Make Scheme Providing Industrial Incentives GST- Compliant Case Title: Emami Agrotech Ltd. versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. The Calcutta High Court has ruled that industrial units cannot be kept in a limbo and denied the incentives, which were specifically promised to them, on the ground of change of the tax regime from VAT to GST. The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the issue of legitimate expectation was involved in the case, and hence, the Court directed the Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises, Government of West Bengal and the Finance Department, to make the Scheme providing incentives to industries GST-compliant. Andhra Pradesh High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection Of GST Refund Application By Axis Bank Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. Versus The Union Of India The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund application by Axis Bank and remanded the matter back to the original authority. The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has referred to a circular dated 25.09.2021 issued clarifying that the insertion of rule (1A) to Rule 89 provides a time limit of 2 years. The two-year time limit would apply from the date of the introduction of the said rule and not from the date of payment of GST. ITAT Income From Operating And Maintaining IT Park To Be Assessed Under "Income from Business": ITAT Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s. N.V.Developers Pvt. Ltd. The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income from operating and maintaining an IT park is to be assessed under the head "Income from Business". The two-member bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) has observed that the income from letting out the premises/developing space along with other facilities in an industrial park, SEZ is to be charged to tax under the head "profits and gains of business." ITAT Allows Deduction To...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 October To 8 October, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags